Moncoutie

[ludwig]

Before the TdF 2002, Antoine Vayer and Frédéric Portoleau wrote a little book
"Pouvez-vous gagner le Tour?".

They asked David Moncoutié to write the foreword. Guess why?

In 2002 Moncoutié played the General classification in the TdF.
In the prologue he was 20th, 17sec dowm on L.A.
4h stage TTT, Cofidis 5th, 1:28 behind US Postal (2nd)
9th stage TT 64th (50km) 4:37 down on Botero, 4:26 on L.A.
11th stage Aubisque, La mongie/ 14th/ 1:59 down on L.A.
12th stage Mente, Portet d'Aspet La Core, Port Pl Beille /12th/ 2:47 down on L.A.
14th stage Ventoux 14th 3:26 down on L.A.
15th stage Premol, Grimone, Ornon, 2 Alpes/ 18th/ 22s. ahead of L.A. (breakaway)
16th stage Galibier, Madeleine La Plagne /13th/ 3:39 down on L.A.
17th stage Roselend, Saisies, Aravis, Colombière/ 4th/ 1'41 ahead of L.A.(breakaway)
19th TT (50 km) 21st/ 3:56 down on L.A.

One notices that he did not have any off day. He just lost time in the last climb of the day as expected from a clean rider against juiced up ones.

He took advantage of less difficult mountain stages (15th, 17th) to try and win one stage, no luck.

He performed fairly well on TTs.

Altogether a very good performance that didn't win him any acclaim, at least not at the level he deserved.
Just look who finished ahead of him
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service 82.05.12 (39.88 km/h)
2 Joseba Beloki (Spa) ONCE-Eroski 7.17
3 Raimondas Rumsas (Ltu) Lampre Daikin 8.17
4 Santiago Botero (Col) Kelme-Costa Blanca 13.10
5 Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano (Spa) ONCE-Eroski 13.54
6 José Azevedo (Por) ONCE-Eroski 15.44
7 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) iBanesto.com 16.05
8 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Rabobank 17.11
9 Roberto Heras Hernandez (Spa) US Postal Service 17.12
10 Carlos Sastre (Spa) CSC-Tiscali 19.05
11 Ivan Basso (Ita) Fassa Bortolo 19.18
12 Michael Boogerd (Ned) Rabobank 20.33

Not many racers in that list have a reputation to match his. I am not saying he would have won in a clean field, but maybe he could have placed in the top 5 or even finished on the podium.

From then on, in all the following TdF he concentrated on a few stages because a stage victory is worth much more that a 13th place overall.

I had forgotten about the 2002 Tour.

I realize you are trying to suggest these results suggest Moncoutie wasn't doping....but I fear they actually point to the opposite. Almost all of the riders Moncoutie was competitive with in that Tour ended up linked to doping scandals.

I seriously doubt anyone who finished Top 25 GC in that Tour was riding clean. If you really want to say Moncoutie is clean, then effectively you are arguing Moncoutie is the rightful winner of the 2002 Tour, because none of those guys finishing ahead of him were clean.

 

[blackcat]

I had forgotten about the 2002 Tour.

I realize you are trying to suggest these results suggest Moncoutie wasn't doping....but I fear they actually point to the opposite. Almost all of the riders Moncoutie was competitive with in that Tour ended up linked to doping scandals.

I seriously doubt anyone who finished Top 25 GC in that Tour was riding clean. If you really want to say Moncoutie is clean, then effectively you are arguing Moncoutie is the rightful winner of the 2002 Tour, because none of those guys finishing ahead of him were clean.

a guy I know reckons no one in the top 30. This person was a PT rider, won a world championship in a discipline in the jnrs.

 

[hrotha]

I had forgotten about the 2002 Tour.

I realize you are trying to suggest these results suggest Moncoutie wasn't doping....but I fear they actually point to the opposite. Almost all of the riders Moncoutie was competitive with in that Tour ended up linked to doping scandals.

I seriously doubt anyone who finished Top 25 GC in that Tour was riding clean. If you really want to say Moncoutie is clean, then effectively you are arguing Moncoutie is the rightful winner of the 2002 Tour, because none of those guys finishing ahead of him were clean.

These results don't point to ANYTHING, one way or another. We have no way of knowing where a talented clean rider (assuming Moncoutié wasn't one) could have finished.

 

[blackcat]

These results don't point to ANYTHING, one way or another. We have no way of knowing where a talented clean rider (assuming Moncoutié wasn't one) could have finished.

better showing a doper, and some science of O2 vector hormones, and the %improvement comparisons of watts, and then show the winner, a doper, and subtract that increment. That will give u a ball park figure of what is possible clean. Or go anecdotal, and talk to ex PT and GT riders.

 

[Escarabajo]

a guy I know reckons no one in the top 30. This person was a PT rider, won a world championship in a discipline in the jnrs.

Very wide generalization. It is hard to tell even for a guy from the inside. It is impossible to tell.

 

[blackcat]

how do you know. Your premise is fatally flawed unless you indeed have ridden a GT yourself in the Armstrong era. <clueless iz without cluez>

 

[Escarabajo]

better showing a doper, and some science of O2 vector hormones, and the %improvement comparisons of watts, and then show the winner, a doper, and subtract that increment. That will give u a ball park figure of what is possible clean. Or go anecdotal, and talk to ex PT and GT riders.

OT completely.

It would work only for O2 vectors. You'll never find out if a guy is only on HGH. Besides you don't know what their baseline is. A guy with a low talent that dope might be able to make it through the 3 weeks but his watts/kg still is in check. Very hard to tell. We can only tell when the TOP riders break the 6.2-6.4 watts/kg mark after 2 weeks of racing. Other than that is complete speculation.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem with anecdotal evidence, however, is that it's anecdotal.

We have anecdotal evidence that Moncoutié is totally clean thanks to Gaumont, Migraine and Boyer. We have anecdotal evidence from Boyer that he just wants to be left alone and isn't really interested in the pursuit of results.

Why would anecdotal evidence that suggests the other outcome be any more believable or conclusive?

 

[Escarabajo]

how do you know. Your premise is fatally flawed unless you indeed have ridden a GT yourself in the Armstrong era. <clueless iz without cluez>

Have you ridden a GT?

 

[blackcat]

Have you ridden a GT?

no but my source has you goose.

 

[blackcat]

The problem with anecdotal evidence, however, is that it's anecdotal.

We have anecdotal evidence that Moncoutié is totally clean thanks to Gaumont, Migraine and Boyer. We have anecdotal evidence from Boyer that he just wants to be left alone and isn't really interested in the pursuit of results.

Why would anecdotal evidence that suggests the other outcome be any more believable or conclusive?

and Kirsipuu reckoned Hushocd was the only top rider who was clean, and that was BS, riding with Jamie Burow on the climbs in Ronde l'Izard et al. Thor is as clean as a Postal rider on Armstrong's tour teams.

 

[hrotha]

no but my source has you goose.

How many GTs did Gaumont ride?

 

[blackcat]

ever heard of "recovery therapy". The common consensus @peloton is, managing hormone levels IS NOT dopin

 

[pmcg76]

a guy I know reckons no one in the top 30. This person was a PT rider, won a world championship in a discipline in the jnrs.

What, did the guy you know finish 31st or something. Thats ridiculous to even try to give a certain placement as proof of doping. Top 10, 20, 30 who knows. There are guys who doped who finished near the back of the peloton so surely there is the odd exception in the Top 30 as well.

So if a guy is sitting in the top 30 with a few days of the Tour left and somebody lying maybe 40th gets in a break and gains 20 minutes thus knocking the other guys out of the Top 30, they automatically become dopers whislt the other guy is no longer a doper because he didnt finish in the top 30. Genius, just pure genius. Really.

I have talked to pros as well and they have questioned performances but never gave an exact number to illustrate a certain rider is a doper. I have been to mountain stages (including one which Moncoutie won) at all three GTs and its obvious after the first maybe 15-20 guys, everybody is just riding for survival or just cruising up the climbs. They are not busting themselves to finish 15th or wherever. I mean when you see the 'autobus' joking and laughing on a climb, its just ridiculous.

I mean I remember shouting encouragement at one guy who was well down on a stage and he turned around and gave me a big thumbs up. This is a guy who certain posters have accused of been a doper because he has had some good performances.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

and Kirsipuu reckoned Hushocd was the only top rider who was clean, and that was BS, riding with Jamie Burow on the climbs in Ronde l'Izard et al. Thor is as clean as a Postal rider on Armstrong's tour teams.

But why are the riders who are saying "everybody's doped" more believable than the ones that say "most people doped but some guys didn't"? Anecdotal evidence is just that. It's not conclusive either way. So why dismiss some anecdotal evidence and accept other parts? Why actively point out anecdotal evidence as something to seek out when you wilfully ignore some anecdotal evidence?

An example.

Bernhard Kohl said "it's impossible to compete in the pro péloton without doping". Do you believe him?

He may be right, he may be wrong. The main reason I don't take his testimony at face value is that he, by his own admission, never actually tried to compete without doping, so how would he know how competitive you could be?

 

[hrotha]

ever heard of "recovery therapy". The common consensus @peloton is, managing hormone levels IS NOT dopin

And the common consensus at the peloton seems to be that guys like Moncoutié and Fédrigo won't even take vitamins.

 

[pmcg76]

But why are the riders who are saying "everybody's doped" more believable than the ones that say "most people doped but some guys didn't"? Anecdotal evidence is just that. It's not conclusive either way. So why dismiss some anecdotal evidence and accept other parts? Why actively point out anecdotal evidence as something to seek out when you wilfully ignore some anecdotal evidence?

An example.

Bernhard Kohl said "it's impossible to compete in the pro péloton without doping". Do you believe him?

He may be right, he may be wrong. The main reason I don't take his testimony at face value is that he, by his own admission, never actually tried to compete without doping, so how would he know how competitive you could be?

We also have to take into account what people define as "competing" in the pro peloton. Does that mean competeing to win the big races, or smaller races or just to finish Top 100 in a race or to finish at all because thats not what I define as competing. The phrase to "compete in the pro peloton" is very vauge, to me competing means going for the win so I cannot be sure Kohl is referring to all pros or just the guys going for the wins.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I mean I remember shouting encouragement at one guy who was well down on a stage and he turned around and gave me a big thumbs up. This is a guy who certain posters have accused of been a doper because he has had some good performances.

Sometimes even the dopers have bad days though.

I met Patrik Sinkewitz. He was a really nice guy. He sometimes lost time in the mountains. He doped before and he doped again until he got stopped.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

We also have to take into account what people define as "competing" in the pro peloton. Does that mean competeing to win the big races, or smaller races or just to finish Top 100 in a race or to finish at all because thats not what I define as competing. The phrase to "compete in the pro peloton" is very vauge, to me competing means going for the win so I cannot be sure Kohl is referring to all pros or just the guys going for the wins.

Even so, Kohl never tried to compete at any pro level without doping, so how could he tell you what his clean capabilities were? And even if he had, how would we know that clean riders couldn't do more than that? Maybe somebody else is simply more naturally talented than him...

 

[pmcg76]

Even so, Kohl never tried to compete at any pro level without doping, so how could he tell you what his clean capabilities were? And even if he had, how would we know that clean riders couldn't do more than that? Maybe somebody else is simply more naturally talented than him...

Exactly, which is why I dislike when someone says you have to dope to finish in a certain place. To say that we would have to agree that every rider has the exact same talent to start with, if this was the case then doping is the only factor in differentiating finishing places. I dont believe that to be true either.

In regards to my point about the rider waving at me, I was trying to make the point that not all riders bust themselves in major races regardless of their history.

 

[python]

Even so, Kohl never tried to compete at any pro level without doping, so how could he tell you what his clean capabilities were? And even if he had, how would we know that clean riders couldn't do more than that? Maybe somebody else is simply more naturally talented than him...

whilst i agree with you and pmcg76, i'd like to point out that a pro-tour level rider who used blood doping (whichever form) would have a pretty good idea of his own clean capabilities vs blood-doped.

power meters tell the difference during physiological tests and the riders know themselves nowadays.

that said, whilst comparing a rider to himself is kosher almost any time, the comparisons between riders across the talent pool of the entire peloton, doped or not, may quickly fall into a 'noise area'.

hence, the uncertainty and ridiculousness of the arguments based on 'my guy said'

the natural selection at pro level, quickly supplants such arguments.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

whilst i agree with you and pmcg76, i'd like to point out that a pro-tour level rider who used blood doping (whichever form) would have a pretty good idea of his own clean capabilities vs blood-doped.

power meters tell the difference during physiological tests and the riders know themselves nowadays.

Is that true?

I mean that as a real question. If a rider was on a programme as a top junior and then went into the pro ranks and kept on doping, how would he know what his maximum performance in peak racing condition without dope is?

Obviously, this hypothetical cyclist wouldn't spend 365 days a year doped to the gills, but I'd have thought that he'd only ever reach his peak condition at the same times of the year that his programme was geared to give maximum assistance. When would he be able to test himself in top condition clean?

 

[Le breton]

Is that true?

I mean that as a real question. If a rider was on a programme as a top junior and then went into the pro ranks and kept on doping, how would he know what his maximum performance in peak racing condition without dope is?

Obviously, this hypothetical cyclist wouldn't spend 365 days a year doped to the gills, but I'd have thought that he'd only ever reach his peak condition at the same times of the year that his programme was geared to give maximum assistance. When would he be able to test himself in top condition clean?

What you say is in line with Gaumont's assessment in his book "Prisonnier du dopage". But then Gaumont has a brain, unlike Virenque.

Ce n'est pas vraiment la tricherie envers les autres qui nous tracasse, car à mes débuts, cela faisait partie du métier et tout le monde le faisait.
It's not cheating the others that is bothersome as everybody was doing it

Non c'est plutôt la tricherie envers soi-même. On essaie de se dire que ce ne sont pas les produits qui font avancer, on se répète qu'on a quand même des capacités hors du commun, mais le doute est la.

It's cheating oneself, you tell yourself it's not the products you take that move you forward, that you are above the norm, but the doubt is there.

C'est un des effets pervers du dopage. On ne sait jamais qui on est vraiment car on repousse des limites qui ne sont pas les nôtres."

You push back limits which are not your own.

Plus loin, il poursuit : "Les dégâts du dopage ne se limitent pas à la santé et à l'éthique. (...) Maintenant que j'ouvre les yeux, je réalise que je ne sais pas quel sportif j'étais vraiment. (...) Le dopage est un mensonge permanent. Pendant dix années, en cédant a cette tentation, j'ai fui un des buts essentiels de la vie : se connaître. Et c'est sûrement cela le plus grave.".

Nowadays I open my eyes and I don't know how good of a cyclist I actually was

 

[JPM London]

Great quotes, Breton, great quotes...

 

[Frosty]

2002 had seen the introduction of the new EPO test and maybe it took some time for people to perfect other techniques. Cyclismag statistics also show a dip in the power of the Maillot Jaune going up the final climb in that year and that only two riders averaged more than 410 watts. This suggests that the tour may have been relatively clean that year and if a clean rider was to do well then this would have been a likely tour for it.

http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=5543